I think Rosen exaggerates Mondoweiss’s sins, but there’s certainly plenty there to cringe at (as I have said before). This isn’t the place for a full examination of the strange nexus of Phil Weiss’s supposedly universalistic anti-Zionism and creepily mystical nativism. Suffice it to say that, though Robert Wright’s defense of us (in which he disputed Rosen’s claim that Mondoweiss is anti-Semitic) was welcome, it didn’t completely relieve our anxieties. We get it. We’re wary of Mondoweiss.

“Civilized discourse” on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict sounds high-minded, but if it means an echo chamber, it’s dangerous stuff. We asked Alex Kane about BDS because Alex Kane writes about BDS, and he knows it well. We didn’t ask for a normative argument about the morality of the conflict. We just wanted to hear the dry, descriptive case that BDS, for better or worse, is gaining ground. In fact, Kane’s first piece (which Rosen missed) responded to Jon Haber, arguing that BDS has had a “ten-year losing streak.” Frankly, on this one I agree with Jon (who runs a blog called "divest this!" dedicated to fighting BDS). But if we didn’t look for the best articulation of the other side, Open Zion wouldn’t be doing its job.

And I suspect Rosen knows this. It’s why we asked David Brog to explain why American Jews shouldn’t fear Christian Zionism, even though CUFI gives me the willies. I’ve been losing sleep over Open Zion contributors—to my left and right—since the beginning. And just in case this isn’t clear: Anti-Semitismscares us, which is whywe write about ita lot.

But I hope we keep running pieces from the extremes. Because I’ll lose a lot more sleep the day we pass on a smart argument because the writer has lousy friends.